Here is yet another column on the reciprocity issue, although this one is from last December's Boston Herald, noting how John Kerry was quick to jump all over Trent Lott, while glossing over his own slurs. Mr. Fitzgerald also touches on Mike Wallace, Jesse Jackson, and Alan Dershowitz, who have each had their own foot-in-mouth moments. None have ever been called out to the degree that Lott was (although Jackson did take a lot of heat, to be fair). Here's the money quotes. (These are all from Fitzgerald's column; my comments in parentheses)

John Kerry 1: "The Iraqi army is in such bad shape, even the Italians could kick their butts.'' (Remember, Boston has a HUGE Italian population.)

John Kerry 2: Attempting to belittle Bill Weld's work ethic, Kerry described the former GOP governor as "a guy who takes more vacations than people on welfare.'' (Welfare recipients are lazy? How déclassé, Mr. Kerry.)

Mike Wallace: During a break in the taping of a "60 Minutes'' piece on minority borrowers, he suggested they might have difficulty reading complicated contracts "over watermelon and tacos.'' (Hello? Talk about stereotypes...)

Jesse Jackson: characterized New York City (under mayor Ed Koch) as "Hymietown". (This one was covered fairly thoroughly, but the history revisionists have worked hard to sweep it under the rug)

Alan Dershowitz: once charged Billy Bulger with using "code words'' like "manipulative'' and "crafty'' to communicate a bias against Jews, yet there was no ambiguity whatsoever when Dershowitz claimed English au pair Louise Woodward couldn't expect a fair trial in Cambridge because "it has a very large Irish population.'' (I guess the Irish, like the Italians, are fair game for the left.)

None of these quotes (except Jackson's) received much coverage. Some of these are really offensive, far more than the moronic comments of John Rocker. However, since he wasn't perceived as a good liberal (I have no idea of his political leanings), he got raked over the coals.

The article doesn't mention it, but John Rocker's boss, Ted Turner (owner of the Atlanta Braves), has made some ignorant swipes as well, mostly against organized religion. Calling Catholics with ashes on their forehead (on Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent) a "bunch of Jesus freaks" is pretty nasty.

Keep the pressure on, Ron. People are waking up, albeit slowly, to the asymmetry and insincerity of the "rules of discourse" the Left has tried to force on us. The essential, unconcealeable unfairness of it will galvanize a reaction that will rock the Left and its Old Media allies back on their heels for a generation.

The Seattle Times uncovered a fascinating link between a recent surge in Seattle City Council fundraising and a rezoning agreement with a shady strip-club owner.

The whole article is an entertaining read, as some of the contributors keep shifting their stories to keep ahead of the reporter's questions.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the three council members (who all supportedin a 5-4 decisionthe rezoning draft, over the recommendations of the city land-use department) received an amazing $34,500 from people who all have ties to Frank Colacurio Jr.

Most of the contributions went to Councilwoman Judy Nicastro, who has received at least $19,400 in donations from Colacurcio and his associates for her re-election bid. Much of that came in last month, when Nicastro raised almost $52,000 — an amount she touted as a single-month council fund-raising record. Contributors include more than 20 Colacurcio-affiliated attorneys, bookkeepers, business partners, strip-club managers, and longtime friends and their relatives. One donation even came from an El Paso, Texas, strip-club owner who could not recall Nicastro's name.

One of my favorite sections in the article comes near the end, but I wonder if it's a cheap shot:

In an interview at Talents West, his Lake City agency that hires nude dancers, Colacurcio Jr., contended that his recent surge in political donations isn't so strange. He said he's always been a strong supporter of Democrats.

"I've always told everyone, including strangers on the street, you should vote — vote Democrat," said Colacurcio Jr., sitting Wednesday afternoon at a massive desk littered with a wad of cash and a plate of steak and eggs.

It's amusing, and totally unbelievable. But it is a smear on the Democratic Party? I try hard to see bias from both sides, and I wonder if I am being a little too open-minded here. It really doesn't fit in well with the rest of the article.

The Boston Globe reports that Pete Stark, the left-wing loony from California, acted with his customary thoughtful, reasonable courtesy:

A transcript of the committee meeting quoted Stark as belittling Thomas's intellect. Although the transcript does not show it, McInnis interjected, ''Shut up.'' The transcript then shows Stark saying: ''You think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you, you little fruitcake.''

Stark said in an interview later that he regretted calling McInnis a ''fruitcake.'' But he also said the transcript missed his telling Thomas, ''You're behaving like a fascist.''

Wow. How much do you want to bet that there will be no blowback on the issue? And somehow, I think if it was a Republican who referred to a Democrat as a "fruitcake", there would be accusations of homophobia flying as if there were no tomorrow. Since Stark is a leftist, however, there will be no negative consequences. It's ironic that one of the representatives of the San Francisco bay area would be the one to use a smear like "fruitcake" against his enemies. (Stark's district runs from Oakland to Fremont, on the east side of San Francisco Bay.)

Stark is a known loose cannon; he equated the war against Iraq with terrorism in this San Francisco Chronicle article in March. Another stupid statement, after he cast his vote against the resolution for support of the president and troops, was ..."it's not right to praise a drunk for driving home without an accident..." (He still has the gall to have a red/white/blue "Support the Troops" ribbon on his House website.) George Will noted in an October 2002 column:

During the House debate on authorizing the use of force against Iraq, Rep. Pete Stark, a paleo-liberal from Northern California, cried, "Rich kids will not pay; their daddies will get them deferments." He meant draft deferments. It is almost unkind to awaken Stark from his dogmatic slumbers to notify him that there has not been a draft since 1973. And the Beatles have broken up.

Even better yet, Dave Mecklenberg rips Stark a new one in this piece at the (sadly) extinct Sabertooth Journal. He responds to this statement in a Stark op-ed in the San Jose Mercury-News:

Let us not forget that our president -- our commander in chief -- has no experience with, or knowledge of, war. He admits that he was at best ambivalent about the Vietnam War. He skirted his own military service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard. And, he reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he didn't notice "any heavy stuff going on.''

Stark needs to be taken to task for his history of intemperate remarks. This is part of the reciprocity that I've been talking about for the last few days, and it's become clear yet again that the left won't police their own.

And so Thomas Sowell's assessment of the Left's mindset receives yet another confirmation. When you're convinced that you're morally superior to your adversary, you can justify doing anything at all to him, including things you would regard as terminal outrages if done to you.

The world isn't running seriously short of any physical resource, but it's near to exhausted of humility.

Actually, anti-gay comments by Republican congressmen and senators are so common as to not be newsworthy. They are reported all the time in the gay press... I have read of countless anti-gay slurs made by Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Bob Dornan... heck practically ALL Republican congressmen! Yet only once have I seen such a slur reported by the mainstream press.

Charlotte Kates, a Rutgers University law student, is also the organizer of an odious anti-Israel rally that will occur in New Jersey in October. Emperor Misha and Charles Johnson have already flogged the conference to death, so I will concentrate on an odious little article she penned for the Rutgers school newspaper. The article can be found here; the link requires a registration. I've included the entire article here, so there is no need to follow the link if you don't want to register.

What may one call a state created from colonized land, stolen from its native inhabitants and turned over to European invaders through a process of militarily-enforced ethnic cleansing and occupation? While one may call it "the United States," one may also call it "Israel" -- but one certainly cannot, and should not call it a "democratically-created state."

She lets us know right up front that she is an America-hater, as well as an Israel-hater.

In 1947, Palestinian Arabs owned 93 percent of the land of Palestine. Their land had been subject to British colonial rule since the end of World War I, at which point those same colonizers made vague promises to the nascent Zionist movement of a "Jewish national home" in Mandatory Palestine. The Zionist movement was, in the early 20th century, but one fringe of Jewish cultural and social organization -- and a reactionary one, formed in nationalistic reaction to the internationalist organizing of Jewish socialists, communists and anarchists. As such, despite (and perhaps because of) European anti-Jewish hatred, the Zionist movement found support among various European political sectors.

I cannot find a reliable cite for the 93% figure, but I do know that during the years of the British Mandate (1922-1947) the Jews *bought* the land they occupied from Arabs, usually from landowners living in Damascus or Cairo. They often paid exorbitant rates for this land (ten times the price of rich Iowa farmland, for example), and this land was often semi-arable, or malaria-ridden swampland. The 93% figure is undoubtedly inflated; This map from the Palestine Center, and shows that there was significant land ownership by Jews at the end of World War II. If a Palestinian-supportive group contradicts her claims, what would an Israeli-supportive map reveal?

She also fails to note that prior to the British mandate, "Palestine" was part of another empire, that of the Ottomans. Palestinian self-rule is a myth; the area has been under colonial rule of one type or another since the Roman empire. (Remember, at the time of Jesus, Pilate was the Roman-installed governor of Palestine.)

The Zionist movement considered not only Palestine as a place for its dream of a "Jewish state," it considered Argentina and Liberia as other likely prospects -- also nations of the global South, long subject to domination, imperialism and exploitation. A largely secular movement, nonetheless, Zionism became centered on Palestine due to its historical and religious significance. The Zionist movement never pretended to offer anything better to the indigenous population than ethnic cleansing and subservience. Its mythology of a "land without people for a people without land" served to consign the Palestinians to nonexistence in popular propaganda while seeking to create such nonexistence in fact.

This whole paragraph is nothing more than boilerplate communist drivel. There's a whole lot of verbiage, with no substance behind it. As to the assertions about Argentina and Liberia, they were ideas floated by one person, a person who also considered the Sinai Peninsula, Tripolotania (in Libya), and a number of other places.

While Jews had always lived alongside Muslims and Christians in historic Palestine, they were Palestinian Jews. The Zionists' essential identification and role was not their religious affiliation but rather their political organization as a European settler colonialist movement, seeking the dispossession of Palestinians and the expropriation of their land. Following World War II, a "Partition Plan" was proposed and adopted by the United Nations. Without consultation with the Palestinians who lived in Palestine, Palestine was to be divided into two states -- a "Jewish state" and an "Arab state." Unsurprisingly, the Palestinian people resisted this new imperialist attack -- there was no compelling reason to accept the splitting and expropriation of large amounts of Palestinian land for no other reason than the decision of European powers and European settlers. Confronted with the Palestinian people's desire to retain their land and independence, the Zionist forces waged an armed onslaught. Contrary to common accounts of the 1948 war, the "Arab armies" entered not the territory granted to the "Jewish state" in the partition plan, but only that designated as "Arab land" -- the Zionist army was equally determined to reject the partition as proposed, as it failed to satisfy dreams of a greater Israel.

This is an outright lie. First off, the Jews accepted the partition plan, while the Arabs rejected it. Secondly, the entire Jerusalem area (including suburbs such as BETHLEHEM) was to be an international city. Seizure of the eastern and southern portions of the international zone does not qualify as staying is the Arab-designated portions. Thirdly, the invasion from Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, and Transjordan hardly qualifies as a "Zionist armed onslaught", although after the dust settled the Jews were in control of more land then when they started. If the Arab nations had not attacked, they would have controlled all of the Arab mandate, and Jerusalem and the surrounding territory would still be an international city.

During the war of 1948, thousands of Palestinian civilians were slaughtered and nearly a million driven from their land and homes, becoming refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. This process of ethnic cleansing was neither accidental nor innocuous; it had long been part of Zionist plans for Palestine. Since that time, they have been repeatedly denied their internationally-recognized human right to return to their homes and homelands.

Since the UN report I am looking for is not available in Electronic format, I will have to refer to a pro-Israeli source for the citation. A report by the UN mediator on Palestine came up with a refugee figure somewhat lower than the Arabic claims472,000. Of those, only 360,000 needed assistance. (source)

As to the whole "right of return" issue, it doesn't extend to those who are not willing to live peaceably with their neighbors. UN resolution 194, point 11 specifically addresses the issue in that manner. Further, it cannot be extended to those who never lived in the country in question (How can one return to a place he has never before seen?), and since the 472,000 has mushroomed to 4 million, somebody's not being honest with the numbers.

The Palestinians who remained in the land that became Israel were subject to military rule until 1967 and continue today to be the victims of more than 20 laws, including the Basic Laws of Israel, that deny them equal status with Jews in Israel. In the West Bank and Gaza Strip, further Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel in 1967, Palestinians live under brutal military occupation, struggling to survive and to continue to fight back against Israeli oppression -- deprived of water, facing home demolitions, detention, torture and death.

Hmmmm. Here is a link to the Basic Laws, from the official Israeli government website, with links (on the side) to summaries and the actual text of the laws. I cannot see how any of these laws deny Arab Israeli citizens the same rights as Jewish citizens.

She keeps referring to "Palestinian territory". Until Israel won the 1967 war started by her neighbors, Gaza was a portion of Egypt, and the West Bank was part of Jordan. How does that equate to Palestinian territory? Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there has never been a nation called "Palestine".

The only time that homes are bulldozed or people are arrested is when they have attacked Israeli cities, or have been a base for such attacks. The water issue is another red herring, as the Israelis replace every single gallon of water they use in the Gaza strip with water from Israel proper.

The oppression and occupation of Palestinian land is funded by U.S. tax dollars. Israel receives more foreign aid money than any other country in the world, and has used its extensive military aid to garner advanced weapons to wage an illegal war in occupied territory against a civilian population. Our money goes to pay for Apache helicopters and F-16s, raining death and destruction on Palestinian towns. Our money goes to pay for the M-16s held by Israeli soldiers as they take aim at Palestinian demonstrators.

In other words, the Israelis use our aid to buy things for the country, rather than to salt it away in numbered Swiss accounts, the usual standard in the Arab world. How much is Yasir Arafat worth again? (Forbes magazine estimates his wealth at $300 million, which makes him the fifth wealthiest world leader, now that Saddam Hussein is gone.) Perhaps if the Palestinian Authority were less corrupt, they might be able to acquire real military weapons, as there is certainly no shortage of countries willing to sell to the PA (France, Germany, Russia, China, North Korea, and so forth). It appears that Arabic corruption is Israel's fault, too, judging by the tenor of her piece.

By the way, the war is not "illegal", nor do Israeli soldiers fire at Palestinian "demonstrators" unless they become violent, at which time they become enemy combatants, not demonstrators.

All people have the right to practice their religion freely and to live in peace, but no group of people has the right to invade the land of another, expropriate that land by force, force out its indigenous residents, and create a racist, brutal apartheid structure. There is no right to imperialism, and no right to apartheid. The world said "no" in South Africa -- the world must say "no" today to Israel. As members of the Rutgers community, we can raise our own voices in protest. We can call upon our University to stop financially investing in corporations that continue to do business with the State of Israel until Israel ceases its violations of human rights. There is no right to create an ethnically, religiously exclusive state. As we stood against fascism and apartheid, we must also stand against Israeli apartheid.

In what way does her first sentence relate to reality? (Hint: It doesn't.) It's more shrill, extremist anti-Israel propaganda. And her statement "There is no right to create an ethnically, religiously exclusive state" is laughable, since Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas, groups she explicitly supports, clearly state that they wish to create a fundamentalist Islamic state in place of Israel. Somehow, however, I seriously doubt she would protest the establishment of such a state with the fervor that she protests Israel. To say that, however, would imply that she is anti-semitic, and we can't have that.

The leader of the DNC is Terry McAuliffe. Please note the spelling. One C.

I am by no means a fan of the man (I think he's a slimy, despicable worm), but I also realize the importance of spelling his name correctly.

After seeing yet another blogger misspell his name (I won't specify the blog, but it is one I read on a continuing basis), I did a little check on Google. The spelling "Terry McCauliffe" produced 198 hits, the vast majority of which were blogs, on both sides of the political spectrum. It's especially annoying to see the blogger misspell the name, and then quote a snippet of an article with the name spelled correctly.

This is not a typo issue; I myself am a lousy typist. It's not even a case of lousy proofreading. This is a case of not carefully reading one's source material. It bugs me tremendously, although I am not sure why.

(UPDATE18July/9:00PMIn the same vein, it is Megan McArdle, not McCardle. Google shows 436 results for the misspelled version. Let it be known that I hold Ms. McArdle in mush higher esteem than the odious Mr. McAuliffe.)

A man's name is the most precious string of letters in his world. It deserves to be treated with respect, even if the man himself does not. Of course, having one of the more easily misspelled last names extant, it could be predicted that I would say that.

But if you think it's tough to get a moderately complex name spelled right, you haven't tried to get a ten-year-old to pronounce "jewelry" or "February" properly!

You must get tired of saying "Two r's, two t's every time you give out your name...(grin)

My last name is only five letters long, but it is almost always misspelled (It sounds like another name that is far more common), so I can symphathize with you there.

Regarding pronunciation, I have to admit that I pronounce the second month as "Feb-yoo-ary", as do most Americans. It's wrong, it's sloppy, but it's so common that if one pronounces it correctly, people will look at the speaker as if he had three heads."Jewelry" is a bit easier to pronounce correctly, but the British spelling of the world (jewellery) works against us.

DC Thornton links to a pair ofThomas Sowell columns discussing wealth, income, and taxation. The first column sets up the explanation of the difference between wealth and income, while the second obliterates the whole class warfare game the left is trying to play. As Sowell notes:

While much of the liberal media emphasized that these 400 highest income-earners had increased their share of national income between 1992 and 2000, only the Wall Street Journal pointed out that there are more than 2,000 people among these 400 "richest" Americans. How can you squeeze thousands of people into the top 400?

The key to thisas to so much other nonsense that is trumpeted in the media about "the rich" and "the poor"is that we are not talking about the same people when we are making comparisons of different income brackets over a period of years. Most Americans do not stay in the same income bracket for even a decade, much less over a lifetime.

In the case of the Internal Revenue Service data on the 400 highest income-earners in the country, only 21 people were in that category throughout the nine years covered by IRS statistics. In other words, more than 2,000 people passed through this category in the course of nine years but fewer than two-dozen actually stayed there the whole time.

Read that last sentence again. Only about 5% of the 400 richest Americans in 1992 were still in the same category in 2000. It's called income mobility, and it lays waste to the class warfare rhetoric of the left.

A quick search of the Forbes 400 archives (which only go back to 1996 online) reveals that the lowest net worth to make it onto the list was >400 million, far higher than the cash payout of any lottery winners. Even taking the 20 year payout option would not have been enough to make the list.

Thomas Sowell is great. I'm currently reading "Basic Economics". Very good book. I'm only a quarter of the way through it, for I have little time to devote to reading, but so far it's very fascinating. It's interesting to me how much of capitalism is really just commmon sense.

This New York Post op-ed is an antidote to the constant bleating from the western press that life in Iraq is worse than it was under Hussein. Yes, the press is quick to point out that there is no more of Hussein's heavy-handed tactics, but they always manage to follow up with a list of shortcomings.

Power Outagesfrom the article:

Much is made of power cuts, especially in Baghdad. But this is partly due to a 30 percent seasonal increase in demand because of air-conditioning use in temperatures that reach 115 degrees. In other cities - for example, Basra - the country's second-most populous urban center, more electricity is used than at any time under Saddam Hussein.

Food Shortagesfrom the article:

There is no famine - in fact, the bazaars are more replenished with food than ever since the late 1970s - while food prices, having jumped in the first weeks after liberation, are now lower than they were in the last years of Saddam's rule.

Medical Crisesfrom the article:

MOST hospitals are functioning again with essential medical supplies trickling in for the first time since 1999. Also, some 85 percent of primary and secondary schools and all but two of the nation's universities have reopened with a full turnout of pupils and teachers.

Refugeesfrom the article:

There has been no mass exodus anywhere in Iraq. On the contrary, many Iraqis, driven out of their homes by Saddam, are returning to their towns and villages.

Their return has given the building industry, moribund in the last years of Saddam, a boost. Iraqi exiles and refugees abroad are also coming home, many from Iran and Turkey. Last month alone the Iranian Red Crescent recorded the repatriation of more than 10,000 Iraqis, mostly Kurds and Shiites.

In Iraq today there are no "displaced persons," no uprooted communities and no long lines of war victims in search of a safe haven.

Attacks on American troopsfrom the article:

Another fact is that the violence we have witnessed, especially against American troops, in the past six weeks is limited to less than 1 percent of the Iraqi territory, in the so-called "Sunni Triangle," which includes parts of Baghdad.

In fact, the Iraqis realize that the American-led coalition is really a liberation force, and even imams who were preaching about pushing out the invaders have switched their rhetoric to encourage cooperation with the nation-building efforts now underway.

In the early days of the liberation, some mosque preachers tested the waters by speaking against "occupation." They soon realized that their congregations had a different idea. Today, the main theme in sermons at the mosques is about a partnership between the Iraqi people and the coalition to rebuild the war-shattered country and put it on the path of democracy.

Even the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr now says that "some good" could come out of the coalition's presence in Iraq. "The coalition must help us stabilize the situation," he says. "The healing period that we need would not be possible if we are suddenly left alone."

Cellphones, satellite TV, and a booming free press (more than 100 new newspapers since Hussein's fall)all are contributing to a free and open Iraq. This is what we'd like to see in ALL of the Middle East. If Iraq can do it, what's to stop Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and all the rest?

(UPDATE18July/2:25PMJim Miller has more on this, including a link to a poll with some revealing results.)

In Case You Missed It, Recession Ended, in November 2001. This is the official line from the National Bureau of Economic Research, whose reports are considered the gold standard of US business cycle analysis.

As The Smarter Cop points out, Bush's initial tax cuts were first proposed during his first 100 days in office? Is there a link? It's certainly no less reasonable than all of the Democratic claims that the cuts have flushed our economy down the drain...

Actually, I was slightly inaccurate. Bush introduced the tax cut on day 20, but didn't actually sign the bill until that June. So while the law wasn't passed during the first 100 days, it was certainly passed well before November.

This CNN story discusses the bloat in the most recent senate defense spending bill, approved last night on a 95-0 vote. The worst offender, IMNSHO, was $2.5 Million for the "Canola Oil Fuel Cell initiative". Whether or not this is a valid appropriation for ANY department is subject to debate, but it most assuredly is NOT something for which the DoD should be footing the bill. Perhaps the Dept of Agriculture or the Dept of Energy, but tacking it to a Defense bill is offensive.

This press release from Citizens Against Government Waste highlights a few of the more egregious examples of "defense spending" attached to a supplemental spending bill (to fund the military activities in the Middle East). $98 Million for an agriculture center in Iowa? (I am not familiar with the $50 million bailout of the shipbuilding industry the release discusses, but that *might* be of some importance to the navy.) The whole CAGW site is full of wasteful spending initiatives in all aspects of the federal budget; take a look at what they have to say, and see if your congressional reps are spendthrifts or fiscally prudent. Their "porker of the month" is equally likely to skewer Democrats and Republicans (and sometimes both at once; May 2002 saw a GOP congresswoman from Kentucky and a Democratic congressman from WV share the award for their work in steering VA appropriations to their districts).

Bryan Preston at JunkYardBlog has a post about Jake Tapper, anti-gun activist, and his new job working for ABC. He points out how if he had been a former NRA or National Right-to-Life staffer, the left wing would have been ALL over it. Since he's a lefty, he gets a free pass.

The reaction to my "Reciprocity" post has been gratifying. I have had a significant number of comments on the post, some positive, some less so. The most recent comment requires a lengthy response. Rather than enter a book into the comments section, I have decided to create a new post for a lengthy rebuttal.

Open the more button to read it, and my response.

Johnny wrote:

Timekeeper:
Okay. You're saying that, in some way, Chomsky's opposition to Israel's occupation of Palestine is equivalent to, say, voting for someone who opposes your basic civil rights? There's a big difference between supporting someone who seeks to oppress your particular group in some way and telling members of your particular group to stop oppressing others. Saying that a Jew who opposes the occupation of Palestine is an antiSemite is as ridiculous as saying an American who opposes the invasion/occupation of Iraq is UnAmerican...oh, hold on a sec.... The point is, being against the occupation is not equivalent to being anti-Israel. Being against the occupation is not the same as being in favour of the (often actually anti-semitic) terrorists who attempt to fight it.

It's also worth pointing out that 'Uncle Toms' and so on don't actively hate their own group, they merely (in the mindset of people who use such terms) betray their group, usually for some manner of personal gain. I don't think it'd be valid to call a black person who voted for a conservative- even an (anti-black) racist- a racist themselves, merely a sellout of some kind. Therefore, even if you believe that Noam Chomsky is in some way betraying all Jews by asking the Israelis to stop occupying Palestine, he is merely a traitor (to his ethnic/religious group) rather than an anti-Semite.

And as for the soldiers affected by Bush's statement? How about these guys? They (by which I mean the entire 2nd BCT) certainly don't seemed too chuffed about Bush and co, and I'd wager that those comments of his had something to do with it. I've been looking for the past wee while for any comments by actual soldiers in iraq about the 'bring it on' comments, and can't find any, either on the blogs you linked to or elsewhere. But if I remember rightly, when the story broke there were a lot of veterans, army family and other people affected by his statement that were seriously unhappy with bush for his latest moronism.

I'm not presuming to speak for the troops (they seem very capable of speaking for themselves, and a lot of them seem to be agreeing with me) or trying to further some kind of agenda- I'm really not the agenda-making type. I'm not necessarily asking you to buy into my worldview. All I'm asking is that the right-wingers at least concede that encouraging enemy troops to kill your own country's soldiers is really not a very clever thing to do, rather than coming up with ridiculous justifications for it. If Clinton had done said the same things there would have been outrage from the right (and rightly so). Why do they make excuses for this particular incident?

My response:

I will comment first on your two links. The first one is to a news article that indicates that there are a significant number of soldiers who are not too enamored of the Bush Administration right now. That is true (and I never claimed otherwise). The reason they are peeved, however, has nothing to do with "Bring it on"; it has everything to do with shifting return dates. If I was over there, and my deployment was operationally extended, I'd be irked too. (It happened to me in 1990, and again in 1996, and again in 1998). However, while I was a little torqued about the unplanned changes, they didn't change my opinion of the presidents or SecDefs who made the decisions. Nothing is writ in stone, and everyone in the military knows about unscheduled changes.

Your second link is a link to a Tom Tomorrow cartoon. There is one factual statement in the whole stripBush's statement. Everything else is TT's mind at play. What was the point?

Going back to the first part of your post, in which we discuss individuals who don't toe the line on prescribed attitudes, you use the thermonuclear "traitor" and "sellout" to describe dissenters. One cannot be a traitor to one's race, whether it is a Jewish Nazi, a black KKK supporter, or a gay Focus on the Family activist. Treason is an action against nations, not against identity groups. We are all Americans (well, those of us in the US, at least), not blacks, Latinos, Jews, Catholics, lesbians, or any of the myriad "Hyphenated-Americans" who seek to eliminate the "American" portion of their identity. And while there are those (on the fringes of both sides) who would seek to deny civil rights to certain groups, it is disingenuous to portray conservative minorities as equivalent to the fringe elements. Ward Connelly is no racist, and Rich Tafel is no homophobe. Simply disagreeing with the concept of special rights does not mean they advocate wholesale revocation of basic civil rights, and I think you know better. And you say they are selling out. What personal gain do these people get? They are often ignored or rejected by those who they support, and are crucified by those who embrace identity politics. For some, personal beliefs trump identity, and they usually endure a lot of abuse as a result.

Regarding ChomskyI don't think he is an anti-Semite, just an idiot. He is most assuredly anti-American and anti-Israel, but not necessarily an anti-Semite. However, his shrill ranting has become ever closer to the rantings of the anti-semitic left, so it's a matter of the company he keeps. (If you are going to tie the right to some of our less reasonable ranters, I see no problem with replying in kind).

You misunderstood the purpose of my links to Smash, Pontifex, and PMO. What I was trying to convey is that there are plenty of military types over there who probably don't have a problem with what Bush said. You have to read their blogs on a regular basis to get a feel for what they think about the whole thing. As far as I know, only Smash has actually blogged a response to what Bush said (link), and it's quite supportive of Bush. The point is that the current anti-Bush line is all about compassion for our troops, when most of the people doing the talking don't give a rat's ass about our troops unless they can be used to score points against the Republicans.

There are undoubtedly some military types (and more family members) who were disturbed by Bush's comments. The media seem to go to great lengths to provide "dissenting voices" when it suits them, and this appears to be one of those times. I strongly suspect that if you asked the people over there what they think about the statement, you'd find that a majority agree with the sentiment. In fact, the sooner all the terrorists and Saddamites are rooted out, the sooner our people can go home.

Clinton would likely not get a free pass, you're right. Of course, for someone who "Loathed the military", he was certainly eager to trot us out for every little humanitarian mission that came along (never mind that that type of mission is not what we train for; the skill sets are a bit different). If not for September 11th, it is likely that we would not have had any major deployments at all. (Remember, the Europeans were denouncing Bush's isolationistic impulses prior to the attacks.) The kicker is that I seriously doubt Clinton would ever say anything like that; it offended the Eurocrats (not Europeans in general, just the leftist elites who shape opinion over there), and Clinton placed special emphasis on their opinions when formulating his foreign policy.

"...it is disingenuous to to portray conservative minorities as equivalent to the fringe elements. Ward Connelly is no racist, and Rich Tafel is no homophobe. Simply disagreeing with the concept of special rights does not mean they advocate wholesale revocation of basic civil rights, and I think you know better.... "

I certainly didn't intend to do so, and I'm not entirely sure where you're getting that from in my post. I was unclear in my usage of certain terms: when I used terms like 'traitor' and 'sellout' I did so to explain the perspective of someone who would use terms like 'oreo' and 'uncle tom', not because I believe in those viewpoints myself. I accept that the term traitor was used inaccurately, and was a bit hyperbolic, perhaps 'works againsts the general interests of their group' would be a more appropriate phrase. The reference to a black person voting for a racist was intended as a fairly extreme hypothetical situation, not as a common case. My point was, even in such a situation, the black voter is not a racist himself, merely that he can be considered to be working against the interests of black people as a whole. Therefore, the terms you used in your previous post were not equivalent to calling Chomsky an anti-semite.It's also worth pointing out that in the case of gay people, it's (generally) not a case of getting special rights so much as of getting equal rights.

"Regarding Chomsky—I don't think he is an anti-semite, just an idiot. He is most assuredly anti-American and anti-Israel, but not necessarily an anti-semite. However, his shrill ranting has become ever closer to the rantings of the anti-semitic left, so it's a matter of the company he keeps. (If you are going to tie the right to some of our less reasonable ranters, I see no problem with replying in kind)."

An idiot? He is (as I understand it), considered to have completely revolutionised the field of linguistics! If that's your definition of an idiot, perhaps the world needs more idiots. I don't believe he's anti-american or anti-Israel- he merely criticises certain policies that the governments of each country has. It's also worth pointing out that a lot of right-wingers seem to frequently confuse anti-zionism with anti-semitism. At the anti-war demos I've been to (in Britain) I've seen a lot of Pro-Palestinian banners and so on, but nothing I would deem to be anti-semitic.

For my first link, you're right, the article is explicitly about the fact that they're being kept out there even longer than expected. However, I get the impression (from this and other sources) that these guys are more pissed off than can be attributed to shifting return dates. It seems to me that the fact that the case for war is rapidly turning out to be a pack of lies, the fact that they are notably *not* being welcomed as liberators but rather as targets, and the fact that their commander in chief apparrently thinks that it's a good thing for them to be attacked by the iraqi people all add up to their current state of extreme peevedness. I'm sure I've seen quotes from vets, soldiers, and soldier's families saying how unhappy they were about the 'bring em on' comment, but couldn't find them while I was writing that post.
There are actually TWO factual statements in the strip, the second being where it says "'you see, the president is deliberately using the ongoing conflict in iraq to lure the terrorists out into the open.' (actual argument making the rounds in conservative circles)." I'm pretty sure I've seen both Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan make this very same point. The rest of the strip illustrates how ridiculous this fantasy is. As Tom Tomorrow explains why i consider these theories 'ridiculous justifications' so eloquently, i decided to let him do it for me. The point was to justify my use of the 'bring them on' incident as an illustration of what should be seen by both left and right as an example of right wing idiocy which the right are making excuses for.

"The point is that the current anti-Bush line is all about compassion for our troops, when most of the people doing the talking don't give a rat's ass about our troops unless they can be used to score points against the Republicans."
This argument pretty much works both ways. Many on the right used the 'support the troops' meme to criticise anti-war protesters, and to drum up support for the war. This is despite the fact that the anit-war people were the ones supporting the troops by trying to prevent them being sent off to fight an entirely pointless war. Now that the troops are being critical of Bush and co, some right-wing extremists have now started saying that those soldiers should be punished for criticising their leaders.

I'm sure that there are many soldiers out there who are still trying to support Bush, of which the three guys you cited are indeed fine examples. But I'm not convinced that these are representitive of the majority of the troops. When you say " the sooner all the terrorists and Saddamites are rooted out, the sooner our people can go home." you make the assumption that there's a finite number of terrorists/Saddamites, and that increasing warfare won't encourage others to join, and seems to imply that the people doing all the fighting are either from other countries or pro-saddam, despite the evidence to indicate that there are many anti-saddam, anti-american guerillas.
As it stands I've still yet to see a right-winger either criticise these idiotic statements from George "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" Bush, or produce a halfway (quarter-way? an eighth-way!) convincing justification for them.
I too doubt that Clinton would ever say something like that, but primarily on the grounds that he wasn't an idiot.

Re. Chomsky - While Chomsky's contributions to Linguistics are important (though, I'm told, increasingly under attack), I'm sure that doesn't affect the point that regarding politics the man is a complete idiot.

Brilliance in one field does not preclude, or even imply, non-idiocy in any other (For instance, Einstein was, while not in Chomsky's realm, at best naive in terms of political thought, and any number of examples can be thought of where someone is very skilled and intelligent in their chosen field (or some other), but incompetent in others).

It's also worth pointing out that in the case of gay people, it's (generally) not a case of getting special rights so much as of getting equal rights.

I'll buy that, but many who are opposed to ENDA and gay marriage don't see either of these as equal rights, but rather as special rights. In the case of ENDA and similar legislation, it is pretty clear-cutthere is no equivalent protection for someone who does not fit into one of the protected classes. It's a lot harder to justify a proscription on gay marriage (on strictly legal ground), but marriage is an issue with a lot of emotional weight attached. Much of the more overwrought railing is nothing more than naked emotion.

In regards to Chomsky, Sigivald nicely summed up my feelings on his intelligence. Anyone who considers the US to be carrying on the aims of the Nazis, while simultaneously denying the atrocities that occurred in communist nations such as the USSR and (especially) Cambodia is detached from reality.

You accuse the right of cynically supporting the troops only to support the war, and then attempt to link an anti-war position to real support for the troops. While there were probably a few people that felt that support for the troops entailed keeping out of the war, the vast majority of the anti-war protestors were those that protest against *any* war that supports US interests. People that advocate reducing the DoD budget by 50-75% cannot be considered those who support our troops. People who support unilateral disarmament cannot be considered those who support our troops. People who are against war, but support "peacekeeping" missions in Liberia, Kosovo, Somalia, and elsewhere cannot be considered those who support our troops. Many of the anti-war protestors are self-professed socialists, and I cannot think of a single socialist group that supports the US military in *any* fashion. If you are aware of one, please let me know; I am convinced that such a group cannot exist.

As I am not currently deployed over there, I cannot speak for the troops on the ground (or floating nearby), but I do know that most of my co-workers (some of whom have just returned to the US after spending time in the area during the war) are still strongly supportive of the administration's position.

As to the finite number of Hussein supporters, you're rightI *do* believe that there is a finite number, and eventually most of them will be marginalized. Now that Iraq has a functioning government (one that is pretty strongly anti-Baathist), you will see the Iraqis begin to work in an organized fashion to deal with the remnants of the opposition. Salam Pax has a letter from a friend at his blog, and it supports what I have said; most Iraqis support the US, at least more than they support Hussein and his partisans.

Yesterday's twin Instalanche had an incredible effect on traffic here; I had six weeks worth of traffic in one day. "A thank you" to everyone who participated in the comments threads, even if I don't agree with your conclusions; they're not intended to be just an echo chamber of self-affirmation. And thanks, of course, to Professor Reynolds, for the links.

Froma Harrop, syndicated columnist, writes from a left-of-center perspective. Consequently, I frequently disagree with her conclusions. However, in this op-ed column, I have nothing but praise for what she has written.

She is discussing union opposition to the "Family Time Flexibility Act", a Republican-sponsored measure that would allow workers to take overtime compensation as either financial incentives, or as additional time off. She notes (correctly) that many people would gladly work longer hours in order to accrue additional time off. She can't understand why the union leadership is so dead-set against the measure, and chalks it up to them being a bit out of touch with working people. (My words, not hers, but I think my summation is accurate).

The Lebanese puppet government, whose strings are pulled by Syria, insists that Syrian troops in the country are necessary "until there is comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace". Lebanese Christians and the US want the Syrian troops to leave, since the country is stable now that Israel has left the country.

It's unlikely that the move was made to placate the US, which is upset at appearances of Syrian complicity in aiding the Iraqi government prior to and during the recent offensive.

Meryl Yourish provides a link to a startling article in the Jerusalem Post, one that (yet again) debunks the "Jenin Massacre" trope. The twist is that this study uses Palestinian figures, claims, and quotes, and arrives at a total figure of 52 dead, 34 of whom were armed combatants.

In a fit of rage, the head of the NAACP threw down the gauntlet at three Democratic Party candidates who failed to appear at the NAACP candidate forum, as well as President Bush, who has skipped all the rest.

"In essence, you now have become persona non grata," NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said of the Democrats who passed on the event. "Your political capital is the equivalent of confederate dollars."

The three candidates who failed to appear each provided a justification. The interesting one was Dennis Kucinich'she remained in Washington in order to cast votes on pending legislation. Perhaps Kerry and Gephardt can take lessons from him.

The interesting thing is that two of the frontrunners in the campaign (Lieberman and Gephardt) failed to show, and Edwards and Kerry almost skipped it as well. It would have been a tremendous blow to the NAACP if all of the credible candidates, and a majority of ALL of the candidates, had failed to show.

To prove that the NAACP is really out of touch with America, I offer this snippet:

But Stanley Thornton, an NAACP member from Miami, said the Democrats have moved so far to the center that sometimes he can't tell them apart from Republicans. Democratic candidates must distinguish themselves to win black votes, he said.

If he can't tell the difference between the two parties, he is hopeless. The partisan chasm between the two parties is both deep and wide, and is growing every day as the Dems careen further left and the GOP splits in halfleftward on economics and rightward on social issues.

Despite Mfume's thunderous attack on the absent candidates, his followers were apparently not all that concerned about the whole thing.

Although thousands filled the convention hall for Mfume's speech in the morning, the presidential candidates appeared before hundreds of empty seats.

The NAACP is turning into a cult of personality, since the leader of a group got more attention than the candidates for leader of the most influential country on earth.

Don't think that stamping the feet and holding the breath is a viable means of getting anything other than passing attention. This guy has got to regroup. Come to think of it the whole organization needs to regroup.

But Stanley Thornton, an NAACP member from Miami, said the Democrats have moved so far to the center that sometimes he can't tell them apart from Republicans. Democratic candidates must distinguish themselves to win black votes, he said.

Note the implicit equation of a spot on the ideological spectrum with its relative appeal to black voters. "We sho' don't look alike but we sho' does thinks alike."

InstaPundit points out that bloggers and pundits are jumping ALL over Pat Robertson for his sleazy connections to, and support of, Liberian dictator Charles Taylor. What he leaves out is that all three of the sources are conservatives, ganging up on an idiotarian conservative. I am still waiting for the left to stage a similar scene. Oh, sure, when Cynthia McKinney accused Bush of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks, Joe Lieberman went after her, but for the most part, the left gives their morons a free pass. The whole Trent Lott affair picked up steam after conservative bloggers dogpiled him, and Rick Santorum has been roundly criticised for his statements equating homosexual behavior with incest, bestiality, and polyamory. We've yet to see similar behavior from the left, except for a small group of pro-war liberals such as Meryl Yourish, Charles Johnson, and Laurence Simon, who are truly at home with the term "anti-idiotarian". There's certainly no shortage of big lefty bloggers out there; let's see them go after their idiots with the same vigor that we on the right beat down ours.

UPDATE 14 July/9:30pmTwo more conservative bloggers who've beat on Robertson: Jim Miller and Stephen Green. (Stephen would probably take umbrage at being lumped in with "conservatives", but since he doesn't know I exist, it'll be our little secret).

I rather suspect that you will have a very, very long wait before Leftists, such as the current loons occupying Eschaton, go after their own. On some of these sites, I've recently observed a rehabilitation of folks such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and other anti semites.

This sort of ties in with the Left's other incomprehensible tendency: its habit of embracing wildly inconsistent causes with uniform and uncritical enthusiasm. All it demands is that they be opposed to freedom, capitalism, and American national interests.

I took a whack at Pat Robertson in a post last night. And I'm very right-of-center--I not only hit him for his Liberian mines, but for bad doctrine. To think I once supported that guy for president...

The left doesn't self-criticize anymore, which is why it tends to embrace all sorts of nonsense and never weeds any of it out. You can be an open bigot and still remain in good standing with the left so long as you equate Bush with Hitler or otherwise tow the liberal line. The right does self-criticize, almost too often in some cases. But Roberston isn't one of those cases. He deserves what he's getting.

More directly on point, the left just happens to have a nationally prominent, religious leader, former presidential candidate of their own who has been deeply in bed with the very same Charles Taylor. Unlike Robertson, he apparently has no $ at stake in Liberia, though he, or at least his allies are reported to be the recipients of Sierra Leone diamonds obtained by the machete wielders. Need another hint, he was largely responsible for Clinton administration Africa policy and in particular preventing rebel groups from overturning Taylor and his friends in Sierra Leone. Still no guess? The initials are JJ. See Timmerman in 7/10 NY Post for more.

Lloyd, read Jim Miller's post (linked above) for a bit more on "JJ". Timmerman's book "Shakedown" has a lot of information on the man's dealings with Africa, most of it sordid and some of it probably illegal.

Timekeeper: What Santorum said is that if a consitutional 'right of privacy' bars laws against sodomy, then it also bars laws against any other private sexual act - including incest, etc. Justice Scalia also thinks so. The issue is not whether there should be laws against sodomy. Justice Thomas wrote that the law in question was constitutional, but ought to be repealed as bad policy. The question is whether there is a right of sexual privacy, and _what_ _other_ _acts_ such a right might protect, whether such protection was intended or not.

Oh, but Bryan, the left most certainly does engage in self-criticism -- like a mudslide, it's an ugly and awe-inspiring sight. All it takes is one leftist saying that another leftist is "carrying white privilege" or "reacting from a self-hating colonized mentality" and suddenly there will be this outpouring of guilt and shame, as all the lefties try to top each other with how far they need to go and how much work they need to do before they become "really progressive." One of the many reasons I'm leaving the Bay Area is that I just can't hang with these people -- as nice and as sincere as they are -- for one more second.

"I've recently observed a rehabilitation of folks such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said and other anti semites."
Um, Chomsky IS Jewish. How can he be an antisemite?
Also, there are plenty of right-wing idiots the right *isn't* going after: what about that guy who lives in Washington and likes to encourage Iraqis to attack USuk troops?

In defense of the leftists though, I think we need to differentiate libertarians from conservatives. Most of us from "the right" who criticize the likes of Robertson are in the former camp, certainly including Messrs. Reynolds and Green. Most of us aren't particularly religious or, indeed, somewhat anti-Big Religion. So it's not necessarily a matter of criticizing one of our own.

JohnnyIn reference to Noam Chomsky, it is the same mechanism that allows Black conservatives to be labeled as "Uncle Toms" or "Oreos", that allows consevative Asians to be called "Bananas", or conservative gays to be called antigay homophobes. Of course, it's all right when such perjorative terms are lobbed by the left, isn't it? &ltsarcasm&gt

As for the slam against Bush, why don't you ask the soldiers who are affected by his statement, such as this guy, or this guy, or this guy; their opinions probably differ considerably from your own. Don't presume to speak for "the troops" to further your own agenda; most of us (here, and over there) don't buy into your particular worldview.

We get lumped in with the conservatives whether we like it or not. (Despite my distinctly Libertarian bent on social issues, I have been called a rightwingideologuefascist, among other terms, by some of the more energetic lefties). And people such as Jim Miller and Michael Barone are solidly conservative, yet they too have been condemning Robertson.

Timekeeper:
Okay. You're saying that, in some way, Chomsky's opposition to Israel's occupation of Palestine is equivalent to, say, voting for someone who opposes your basic civil rights? There's a big difference between supporting someone who seeks to oppress your particular group in some way and telling members of your particular group to stop oppressing others. Saying that a Jew who opposes the occupation of Palestine is an antisemite is as ridiculous as saying an American who opposes the invasion/occupation of Iraq is UnAmerican...oh, hold on a sec.... The point is, being against the occupation is not equivalent to being anti-Israel. Being against the occupation is not the same as being in favour of the (often actually anti-semitic) terrorists who attempt to fight it.
It's also worth pointing out that 'Uncle Toms' and so on don't actively hate their own group, they merely (in the mindset of people who use such terms) betray their group, usually for some manner of personal gain. I don't think it'd be valid to call a black person who voted for a conservative- even an (anti-black) racist- a racist themselves, merely a sellout of some kind. Therefore, even if you believe that Noam Chomsky is in some way betraying all Jews by asking the Israelis to stop occupying Palestine, he is merely a traitor (to his ethnic/religious group) rather than an anti-semite.
And as for the soldiers affected by Bush's statement? How about these guys? They (by which I mean the entire 2nd BCT) certainly don't seemed too chuffed about Bush and co, and I'd wager that those comments of his had something to do with it. I've been looking for the past wee while for any comments by actual soldiers in iraq about the 'bring it on' comments, and can't find any, either on the blogs you linked to or elsewhere. But if I remember rightly, when the story broke there were a lot of veterans, army family and other people affected by his statement that were seriously unhappy with bush for his latest moronism.
I'm not presuming to speak for the troops (they seem very capable of speaking for themselves, and a lot of them seem to be agreeing with me) or trying to further some kind of agenda- I'm really not the agenda-making type. I'm not necessarily asking you to buy into my worldview. All I'm asking is that the right-wingers at least concede that encouraging enemy troops to kill your own country's soldiers is really not a very clever thing to do, rather than coming up with ridiculous justifications for it. If Clinton had done said the same things there would have been outrage from the right (and rightly so). Why do they make excuses for this particular incident?

Stop politicizing the war. Using the war for partisan political gain is such an ugly thing.

Last year, in what appears to be a coordinated campaign, Tom Daschle, Terry McAuliffe, Al Gore, and others in the Democratic party accused the Bush Administration (and Karl Rove in particular) of using the war as a political tool. Of course, now that the red-herring "Uranium from Niger" theme seems to have gained some traction, they are busy using the war (or opposition to the war) in an effort to damage Bush. We don't hear them talking about the issue now.

Little mystery here as to the why. Simplicity itself: The Dems have NOTHING that can win them ANYTHING of significance. Hence they must grasp at SOMETHING, no matter how transitory or lame, just to keep themselves in the news cycle.

Advice to Dems: Get a candidate and sink the clowns rather than sending them in.

"In June (2002), a floppy disk found near the White House turned out to contain a presentation used by Karl Rove on White House strategy for the midterm elections. Focus on war was a key point in a talk that centered on the White House's desire to, quote, "maintain a positive issue environment." Around this time, Rove was criticized for telling a Republican group that the war and terror themes could play to the GOP's advantage in the November elections. Not long after, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq. Card replied, `From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.'"

The entire issue is a non-starter. The first Democrat who raises it in a debate must address their awful behavior after 9/11 when they were demanding to know why the Administration did not 'connect the dots' of intelligence information to predict and prevent 9/11.

They can't have it both ways. When the same administration takes intel seriously (even if from the British) and uses it together with a mountain of other intel to make recommended policies, they are 'connecting the dots', which the Democrats will find that the American people the President to do.

Just how bad off as a party do you have to be before a true statement in the SOTU address; "The British government believes that Iraq has tried to purchase Uranium from Africa," which is not a false statement or a lie or even a prevication, can become an issue upon which you attempt to build a case for your party to take over leadership of foreign policy. The story in all of this is how marginalized the Democratic party has become. Is this the BEST you've got? How sad.

Remember that the congressional Dems were the ones who wanted to hold interminable hearings on the whole subject. It blew up in their faces because they didn't think it through.

JamesThat was the point I was making. Last year at this time, the Democratic Party was screaming bloody murder that the GOP sought to capitalize on Bush's leadership abilities, with which I have no problem. Now the Dems are using a perceived stumble in the war for political gain, which is a bit hypocritical. I don't have a problem with them using the issue (although I strongly disagree with them), but the double standard is breathtaking.

A floppy disk was found??!!! Gee, it must be the real thing 'cause only the White House has access to those, and the Presidential staff is known to carelessly drop them all over DC. And, of course, enterprising reporters at the WaPo have their eyes peeled to find these derelict floppies. How conveeenient.

But, surely, anything critical of Bush posted on a website called President Moron must be genuine. I mean, nobody who goes to the trouble to set up such a website would ever be party to a hoked up PowerPoint, would they?

The presentation, if true, confirms that Karl Rove thought that the war should be a campaign issue, and therefore the bed-wetting about "politicizing" the investigation of possibly hyped pre-war claims is rather funny.

What is so alarming about putting "Focus on the war and the economy" in your campaign strategy? I would guess it was all over FDRs strategy in the late 1930s before we were at war then. Is a better strategy IGNORING the possible war and it's implications? for pity's sake!

Can't you see that both sides have been guilty of politicizing the issue? That's MaB's point.

Personally I believe the Democrats have more to lose by politicizing the issue, but maybe that's just 'cause I was in favor of the war.

And yes, the floppy disk is authentic. Rove never denied that it was his. Nor do I think anything on the disk is shocking or scandalous, just proof that the Republicans are not above using the war for their own political advantage, as anyone with half a brain would already know.

Brian, MaB, you are both missing the sarcasm in my original post. It was the Democratic Party (Tom Daschle, especially) who accused the GOP of "politicizing the war" all through the second half of last year. See this link for an example.

As my previous comment indicated, I don't have a problem with the Dems using this as an issue, although I think it is an awfully weak issue on which to base a campaign. What I *do* have a problem with is the double standard they enjoy; not only do they get to have it both ways, but the press blithely ignores the 180 degree change in direction.

Sorry, Brian, government officials are taught from day one to neither confirm nor deny things like that. This is not a credible document.

In any case, the Democrats politicization of the war has been in such a way that emboldens America's enemies and will cost American lives down the road. If Saddam is still alive, he is counting on the Dems to come to his rescue and return him to power. Iranian officials are brazenly telling the students protesters not to count on Bush being around for long. And, North Korea is ratcheting up the rhetoric as they sense a chink in Bush's armor. Thanks loads, Dems. Your futile, floundering attempt to wrest political power at any cost is going to cost more than you imbeciles know.

I'm a professional soldier. I've been one now for 18 years. I don't see how any war can be kept out of the field of politics. I believe that is one of the reasons our Constitution stipulates an elected civilian be in command of our armed forces, and an elected body be responsible for declarations of war. How could our founders be so brilliant on other matters, and have missed this thought so completely? Of course they didn't, they expected a President to have to win public support (through 'politics') for any war he was to command, and for Congress to have to take into account the wishes of their constituents before and after voting to declare, or not declare, war. This is all politics, and it was expected to be done for every war. Generals vote, and guess what, Privates are allowed to vote, too! Pacifists even get to vote, and are likely to be in a booth right beside someone who wishes wars could go on forever. Imagine!
I want that this war, and all wars, be politicized. Not because I don't want to fight (I'm currently deployed as part of Op Iraqi Freedom), but because I want to know that I and my fellow soldiers are supported by a majority of the American populace. The only way I will know that is through their support of politicians who hold their views. Let them be heard, and let their wishes hold sway. I don't fear the public, as many do.
PS. On the disk with the slides supposedly by Karl Rove...if that sophmoric effort is the best he can do (there is nothing there that a ninth grader interested in politics couldn't have put together), then the Dems should be able to outmaneuver old Karl every day of the week. I'm pretty sure that is not the case.

I served 4 years Honorable duty, and detested 'politics' every step of the way...

But the policy-making aspects of communal decision-making is 'politics', and it must happen.

I, too, am proud to have guarded and carried forward the interests of and the high ideals of America, despite any short-comings America may have made along the way.

Politicizing something may be 'bad', but it is MUCH more than the rational acknowledgement that 'a war is happening' and 'America is fighting it' juxtaposed with 'here's how we best present these realities later this year...'

With reference to finding a floppy disk on the ground and immediately thinking "Hey, why don't I go take this disk of unknown origin and put it in my Dell Inspiron and see if the virus checker works!" -- Right there is where I assume the thing is bogus. I don't even have to see which side "found" the disk, nor what the disk is claimed to contain. Like, who would put that disk into a computer?

"(I think the thing that threw me off though was the lame attempt by some posters to deny that the Rove disk existed or that it constituted evidence of politicization if it did.)"

I think what's lame is claiming to find a floppy disk laying on the ground that lays out your opposition's strategy for an upcoming election. I mean, come on, that doesn't pass any test you care to name - laugh, smell, whatever.

Sure, its remotely possible that Karl Rove dropped a floppy disk on the ground containing secret info, but until Karl admits it or somebody comes up some kind of proof, I am not buying this one for an instant.

I served 26 years 1 month, and honorably retired in 1976. Politics are involved with every aspect of our lives today, and should be. I agree with much of what has been written, but if the past week is the best the Democratic Party can support, then Republicans should sweep the elections. I question the intelligence of candidates who would quibble over "16 words" that are truthful, were truthful in 1991, and God only knows how many other countries Saddam tried to buy yellow-cake from? Possibly France, Germany, North Korea, India, where else? At least President George W. Bush does not "whistle past the graveyard" as the past administration did for 8 years, and the United Nations did for 12 years. All the whistling will not keep the devils, hobgoblins, or demons away.
George Bush and Tony Blair may just show the world how to fight terrorism (by whomever).

Frank, there are no hobgoblins or demons...stop lusting after Ann Coulter.

The sixteen words were a major point in an argument. They were technically true, but misleading to the average idiot watching tv. This was deliberate and calculated, and I'm sure they knew this issue would come up and the way they are behavingtoday is as they planned before the SOTU address.

Your first problem is believing in God. Doing so, you relinquish your freedom of thought and you enslave yourself to the whims of charismatic leaders.

The Bush people can politicize their war on terrorism all they want to, because they have earned the right.

In contrast with the Clinton people in the past and the Democrats in the present (cf. Byron York's article in "The Hill" cited by Glenn Reynolds on the Iowa Democrats who simply don't care about the war on terrorism--that's got to be the ultimate of some kind), the Bush administration has got one simple, massive truth very, very clear, and their political opponents are dodging it any way they can.

That truth can be stated in the following manner: everyone in America reading this post is marked for death; everyone in America not reading this post is marked for death. Islamist terrorists want every American dead, and they have the will and the wit--but not yet the access or the military means--to accomplish that end.

The Bush administration is making amazing efforts, with some amazing results so far, to counter this assault. And the Democrats did nothing when in the White House with Clinton, and don't give a damn now.

This is so black and white I don't see where the argument is or can be. If Democrats by their stated attitudes give aid and comfort to the Islamlist enemy (and does anyone reading this not know what that phrase is the definition of?), then we don't need Ann Coulter to tell us that these American citizens are the enemies of this country and of the rest of us that love this country and want to defend it.

I know that I promised I would never own one. I know that I hate them on general principles, and hate them more every time I see some moron driving with the cell phone pressed against his or her ear. Equally annoying is when people use the cell in a grocery store to ask their S/O "what do you want for dinner?" or something equally trivial.

It's not that I am a luddite; after all, I have a state-of-the-art laptop computer, a mp3 jukebox, a minidisc recorder, and other assorted gadgets. I just feel that I don't have a pressing need to be available 24/7. My family knows that the easiest way to contact me is via e-mail, since my land line is tied up by my internet connection.

In any case, due to a convergence of several personal issues, I have succumbed to the lure, and am now the (not-so-proud) owner of a little bitty cell phone, all 3.1 ounces of it. It has a bunch of nifty features that I will never use, and it comes with a 143 page instruction manual that I will never read all the way through. I've figured out the important thingshow to make a call, how to turn it off, and how to change the incredibly annoying ring (it sounds like a bloody calliope on lithium). Anything else is superfluous.

Tonight, at 8:36 pm, a visitor on the East Coast, linking to me from Daily Pundit was my 20000th visitor.

Unlike some sites, I have been careful to exclude myself from the counter (Sitemeter has an "Ignore IP Address" feature which I use religiously), and the actual number of visitors is somewhat higher (one of the IP addresses I block is the one at work, which means that none of my coworkers hits get counted, either. However, I will stick with the documented hits, so the comcast user who visited me is the milestone.

Matt Margolis has been reading the Boston Globe, and he doesn't like what he's read. Republicans Can't Be Heroes is the conclusion he draws from an idiotic, mindless piece of claptrap from Scot Lehigh. He also takes two Democratic lawmakers to task for turning a selfless act on Mitt Romney's part into a partisan hatchet job on him, and points out that not all the Dems are pond scum.

Ask them why it is wrong to eat eggs. Then ask them why the same logic does not apply to abortion.

I've not heard of any PETA activists who are pro-life, although I imagine there might be one or two. Most of them are stridently left-wing, however, and don't see any contradiction between being pro-choice on abortion and being anti-choice on dietary issues.

(FWIW, I am [weakly] pro-choice, so please do not submit a screed to the comments on the subject. I just cannot stand the hypocrisy and sanctimony of the extreme left on this topic.)

(2) If egg-laying chickens were kept in good conditions, PETS activists would porbably not be opposed to eating eggs because those eggs are UNFERTILIZED. So there is NO analogy to aborting a fetus at all.